OPTIMA REALTY CORPORATION vs HERTZ PHIL.

EXCLUSIVE CARS, INC.

GR NO. 183035; JANUARY , !013

"ACTS#

Optima is engaged in the business of leasing and renting out

comm
commererci
cial
al spac
spaces
es and
and bu
buil
ildi
ding
ngs
s to its
its te
tena
nant
nts.
s. Opti
Optima
ma and
and
Respondent Hertz entered into a Contract of Lease over an office
unit and parking slot in the Optima Bulding for a period of 3
years. Hoever! the lease agreement as amended by shortening
the lease period ot " years and # months. Hoever! Hertz failed
to pay its rentals from $ugust to %ecember "&&# and 'anuary to
(ebruary "&&) notithstanding the fact that Optima granted the

former*s re+uest. ,t also failed to pay its utility bills. Optima sent
a letter to Hertz! reminding the latter if it ill rene its contract
by a ne negotiation beteen them and upon ritten notice by
the lessee to the lessor at least -& days before the termination of 
the
the leas
leasee peri
period
od.. inc
ince
e Hert
Hertz
z fa
fail
iled
ed to sesend
nd rit
ritte
ten
n no
nottic
ice
e
reneing its contract and it*s desire to negotiate! Optima did not
rene the lease.

/e0C 1 filed a Complaint for pecific 2erformance!

,nu
,nunc
ncti
tion
on!! %ama
%amage
ges
s an
andd um
um of mo mone
neyy and
and prpray
ayed
ed fo
forr th
the
e
issu
issuan
ance
ce of a 0R0RO
O an
and
d rit
rit of prel
prelim
imin
inar
ary
y ,n,nu
unc
ncti
tion
on agagai
ains
nstt
Optima. ,t sought the issuance of a 0RO to enoin Optima from
committing acts hich ould tend to disrupt it*s peaceful use and
posse
ssess
ssioion
n of the leased
ased prerem
mise
ises and it of prel relimina
minaryry
inunction to order Optima to reconnect its utilities.

Optima demanded Hertz to surrender and vacate the leased

premises and pay 24"&!-)5."6 covering rental arrearages! unpaid
utility bills and other charges. %ue to Hertz*s refusal to vacate the

le
leas
ased
ed pr
prem
emis
ises
es!! Op
Opti
tima
ma fi
file
led
d an ac
acti
tion
on be
befo
fore
re th
the
e /e
/e0
0C fo
forr
 

7nlaful %etainer and %amages ith 2rayer for the ,ssuance of a

0RO and8or 2reliminary /andatory ,nunction against Hertz. /e0C
rendered a udgment in favor of Optima and ordered Hertz to
vacate the premises.

R0C 9 affirmed the decision of the /e0C: C$ 9 reversed and

set aside the decision of the R0C: ruled that due to the improper
service of summons! the /e0C failed to ac+uire urisdiction over
the
the pers
person
on of resp
respon
onde
dent
nt.. Henc
Hence!
e! this
this pe
peti
titi
tion
on fo
forr re
revi
vie
e on
Certiorari under Rule 4#.

ISSUES# 

;. <het
<hether
her or not the /e
/e0
0C properly
properly ac+ui
ac+uired
red urisdiction
urisdiction over
the person of respondent on the unlaful detainer case is

barred by L,0, 2=>%=>0,$

RULING#

;. ?=. 'uri
'urisdic
sdiction
tion ov
over
er the person
person of the defendant
defendant may be
ac+uired either by service of summons or by the defendant*s
voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority.
,n this case! the /e0C ac+uired urisdiction over the person of 
res
respondent Hertz by rea reason of the latter* r*s
s voluntary
appe
ap pear
ara
anc
nce
e in cocour
urt.
t. ,n spit
spite
e of th
the
e defe
defect
ctiv
ive
e se
serv
rvic
ice
e of 

summons! the defendant opted to file an $nser ith

Counterclaim ith Leave of Court. (urthermore! it never raised
the defense of improper service of summons in its anser ith
counterclaim.